Wiki Scanner & wikinews

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wiki Scanner & wikinews

brian.mcneil-2
Okay, you've been living under a rock if you haven't heard of the
WikiScanner that combines a decent IPtoLocation and Whois database with a
list of all the "anonymous" edits to Wikipedia. Wired were first off the
blocks with their story on Diebold whitewashing, and lots of others followed
picking up on diverse groups like the CIA and the Vatican editing Wikipedia.

 

Wikinews has been playing with the tool too, our interest was "what have the
*media* been manipulating?" - And the first question we shot at the guy,
Virgil, who set up the scanner was, "Can you include other Wikis?" With what
we've found here:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/FOX_News_fares_poorly_in_investigation_of_media_
edits_to_Wikipedia we'd like to know if WikiSource or Wikinews have been
"whitewashed".

 

The talk page of the above article has a section for questions for when we
interview Virgil, we want to cover the aftermath of his little toy getting
slashdotted and abused by every popular website on the net, as well as
quietly get other wikis integrated and start looking at where else there is
manipulation.

 

Comments/feedback? Are we unduly crucifying Fox? :-)

 

 

Brian.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

David Gerard-2
On 21/08/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wikinews has been playing with the tool too, our interest was "what have the
> *media* been manipulating?" - And the first question we shot at the guy,
> Virgil, who set up the scanner was, "Can you include other Wikis?" With what
> we've found here:
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/FOX_News_fares_poorly_in_investigation_of_media_
> edits_to_Wikipedia we'd like to know if WikiSource or Wikinews have been
> "whitewashed".


It's a fairly simple transformation of a MediaWiki database dump - it
should be easy to do for any MediaWiki installation. I understand the
WikiScanner is running flat-out at the moment, though that should ease
up as the media interest slows.

(The media interest has been ridiculous - I was doing press all
Thursday and Friday and it's still all over the blogosphere. What can
I say, it's August ...)


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by brian.mcneil-2
On 8/21/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Okay, you've been living under a rock if you haven't heard of the
[snip]
> Comments/feedback? Are we unduly crucifying Fox? :-)

Oh lets see... How about the little detail that without confirming
evidence there is no reason to believe that an edit made from a Fox IP
was an action endorsed by Fox?

With the widespread existence of things like open wireless access
points we can't even be sure if any particular edit was made by
someone employed by For or even using a Fox owned computer.

Yet the Wikinews article seems to happily go on and describe every
action coming from a company IP was an action of that company.

"the BBC had edited", "FOX News, and its parent company, News
Corporation had a history of unproductive edits" "FOX also edited"
"the CIA had been editing" "FOX's edits" "AP had made a few edits"

So would you also say that countless other Wiki(p|m)edians are editing
on behalf of their employers every time they edit from home and forget
to log out of their VPN? When they edit during a coffee break?

Is the only thing protecting me of an accusation of "Greg's employer
defends Fox in Wikipedia Whitewashing scandal" the fact that Gmail
doesn't send IP addresses?

It's sad to see us peddling the same sort of irresponsible journalism
that we've seen from the commercial market on this matter. At least in
their cases we can give them a pass due to a lack of understanding of
the technology.

Whats your excuse?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

brian.mcneil-2
I have forwarded your email onto the accredited reporters email address, you
make some valid points and I would prefer wider input from our community on
this.  The article is still not published - hence soliciting input.  Perhaps
what we have found says more about *who* gets employed *where*, but I think
you have a point and representing our information in a neutral manner is
potentially problematic.

Please - like all Wiki projects - feel free to edit and suggest
contributions on the talk page, my main aim was to highlight this to a wider
audience hopefully without someone "scooping" us.


Brian.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gregory
Maxwell
Sent: 21 August 2007 16:01
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki Scanner & wikinews

On 8/21/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Okay, you've been living under a rock if you haven't heard of the
[snip]
> Comments/feedback? Are we unduly crucifying Fox? :-)

Oh lets see... How about the little detail that without confirming
evidence there is no reason to believe that an edit made from a Fox IP
was an action endorsed by Fox?

With the widespread existence of things like open wireless access
points we can't even be sure if any particular edit was made by
someone employed by For or even using a Fox owned computer.

Yet the Wikinews article seems to happily go on and describe every
action coming from a company IP was an action of that company.

"the BBC had edited", "FOX News, and its parent company, News
Corporation had a history of unproductive edits" "FOX also edited"
"the CIA had been editing" "FOX's edits" "AP had made a few edits"

So would you also say that countless other Wiki(p|m)edians are editing
on behalf of their employers every time they edit from home and forget
to log out of their VPN? When they edit during a coffee break?

Is the only thing protecting me of an accusation of "Greg's employer
defends Fox in Wikipedia Whitewashing scandal" the fact that Gmail
doesn't send IP addresses?

It's sad to see us peddling the same sort of irresponsible journalism
that we've seen from the commercial market on this matter. At least in
their cases we can give them a pass due to a lack of understanding of
the technology.

Whats your excuse?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

Dan Rosenthal
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell

On Aug 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 8/21/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Okay, you've been living under a rock if you haven't heard of the
> [snip]
>> Comments/feedback? Are we unduly crucifying Fox? :-)
>
> Oh lets see... How about the little detail that without confirming
> evidence there is no reason to believe that an edit made from a Fox IP
> was an action endorsed by Fox?
>
> With the widespread existence of things like open wireless access
> points we can't even be sure if any particular edit was made by
> someone employed by For or even using a Fox owned computer.
>
> Yet the Wikinews article seems to happily go on and describe every
> action coming from a company IP was an action of that company.
>
> "the BBC had edited", "FOX News, and its parent company, News
> Corporation had a history of unproductive edits" "FOX also edited"
> "the CIA had been editing" "FOX's edits" "AP had made a few edits"
>
> So would you also say that countless other Wiki(p|m)edians are editing
> on behalf of their employers every time they edit from home and forget
> to log out of their VPN? When they edit during a coffee break?
>
> Is the only thing protecting me of an accusation of "Greg's employer
> defends Fox in Wikipedia Whitewashing scandal" the fact that Gmail
> doesn't send IP addresses?
>
> It's sad to see us peddling the same sort of irresponsible journalism
> that we've seen from the commercial market on this matter. At least in
> their cases we can give them a pass due to a lack of understanding of
> the technology.
>
> Whats your excuse?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I agree 100% with Greg. Reputable news sources have been saying  
"Edits coming from the IP range owned by XXX" or even just "Edits  
from XXX's network". Jumping to conclusions like that is shoddy  
journalism that would never be accepted in print, and certainly  
should not be accepted by us.

-Dan Rosenthal


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

brian.mcneil-2
I see two criticisms of the *unpublished* article here so far. I see no
edits to the article to improve it in light of these criticisms. We at
Wikinews are in the process of trying to arrange an interview with the
creator of the WikiScanner tool to fill out the article, there is a window
of opportunity for people to engage on Wikinews and shape this article.

My posting to this list was to highlight something I thought people would
take an interest in and perhaps contribute to. Whilst I can be charitable
and accept that the criticism is intended to be constructive it is lacking
in suggestions on how to improve our work to address said criticism. Not to
mention the fact that this is a *wiki* article and anyone can edit it.


Brian.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

Sage Ross
In reply to this post by brian.mcneil-2
On 8/21/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Okay, you've been living under a rock if you haven't heard of the
> WikiScanner that combines a decent IPtoLocation and Whois database with a
> list of all the "anonymous" edits to Wikipedia. Wired were first off the
> blocks with their story on Diebold whitewashing, and lots of others followed
> picking up on diverse groups like the CIA and the Vatican editing Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> Wikinews has been playing with the tool too, our interest was "what have the
> *media* been manipulating?" - And the first question we shot at the guy,
> Virgil, who set up the scanner was, "Can you include other Wikis?" With what
> we've found here:
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/FOX_News_fares_poorly_in_investigation_of_media_
> edits_to_Wikipedia we'd like to know if WikiSource or Wikinews have been
> "whitewashed".
>
>
>
> The talk page of the above article has a section for questions for when we
> interview Virgil, we want to cover the aftermath of his little toy getting
> slashdotted and abused by every popular website on the net, as well as
> quietly get other wikis integrated and start looking at where else there is
> manipulation.
>
>
>
> Comments/feedback? Are we unduly crucifying Fox? :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian.

If you haven't seen it, I did some work on the WikiScanner issue for
the Wikipedia Signpost, which may or may not be helpful.  Please
overlook the slippage between "edits from IP" and "edits from
organization" language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-08-20/WikiScanner

-Sage (User:Ragesoss)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

jason safoutin
In reply to this post by brian.mcneil-2
>Oh lets see... How about the little detail that without confirming
>evidence there is no reason to believe that an edit made from a Fox IP
>was an action endorsed by Fox?

>With the widespread existence of things like open wireless access
>points we can't even be sure if any particular edit was made by
>someone employed by For or even using a Fox owned computer.
>Yet the Wikinews article seems to happily go on and describe every
>action coming from a company IP was an action of that company.
>"the BBC had edited", "FOX News, and its parent company, News
>Corporation had a history of unproductive edits" "FOX also edited"
>"the CIA had been editing" "FOX's edits" "AP had made a few edits"

>So would you also say that countless other Wiki(p|m)edians are
>editing
>on behalf of their employers every time they edit from home and forget
>to log out of their VPN? When they edit during a coffee break?
>Is the only thing protecting me of an accusation of "Greg's employer
>defends Fox in Wikipedia Whitewashing scandal" the fact that Gmail
>doesn't send IP addresses?

>It's sad to see us peddling the same sort of irresponsible journalism
>that we've seen from the commercial market on this matter. At least in
>their cases we can give them a pass due to a lack of understanding of
>the technology.

>Whats your excuse?

My excuse...Do you know how IP address work? ONLY individuals employed by FOX News Channel, or News Corp have access to those IP addresses. ONLY employees are the ones who can log onto the internet with those IPs.

Its simple. FOX News employees made the edits, as the tool says, under FOX News IP addresses, only able tp be used by employees. I or you or anyone else is not able to log onto the internet and use their IP ranges. That is impossible. This is not whitewashing. We did more than FOX. We did the AP, Reuters, MSNBC, CNN, and BBC. and all of those agencies, with the exception of FOX News were realitively clean in terms of edits.

You see, before slam Wikinews and whitewash us, maybe you need to use the WikiScanner tool and understand how it works and also understand how IPs work as well.

Jason Safoutin, Wikinews writer, administrator.







       
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinew

geni
On 8/21/07, jason safoutin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My excuse...Do you know how IP address work? ONLY individuals employed by FOX >News Channel, or News Corp have access to those IP addresses. ONLY employees are >the ones who can log onto the internet with those IPs.

Prove it.

> Its simple. FOX News employees made the edits, as the tool says, under FOX News IP >addresses, only able tp be used by employees. I or you or anyone else is not able to log >onto the internet and use their IP ranges. That is impossible.

Okey:

There are various ways they could have computers set up for semi
public acess. School vists perhaps.

Fair chance of useing wifi. Far from imposible that their security
hasn't always been flawless

Fox may have chosen at some point to act as an ISP for someone else
either in the same building or a nearby building.

The usual problems with compramised computers

There used to be a way to  make mediawiki record false IPs

>This is not whitewashing. We did more than FOX. We did the AP,
Reuters, MSNBC, CNN, >and BBC. and all of those agencies, with the
exception of FOX News were realitively clean >in terms of edits.
>
> You see, before slam Wikinews and whitewash us, maybe you need to use the >WikiScanner tool and understand how it works and also understand how IPs work as well.
>
> Jason Safoutin, Wikinews writer, administrator.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50

Generaly Check users are chosen from those who know their way around
as to how IPs work.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

Tim 'avatar' Bartel
In reply to this post by jason safoutin
Hi,

jason safoutin schrieb am 21.08.2007 22:32:
> My excuse...Do you know how IP address work? ONLY individuals employed by FOX News Channel, or News Corp have access to those IP addresses. ONLY employees are the ones who can log onto the internet with those IPs.

I visited "Barcamp Cologne 2" this weekend. Together with ~200+ other
people. The QSC corporation sponsored the WLAN access. So all
participants which edited Wikipedia last weekend (not logged in) would
be shown as belonging to QSC in WikiScanner.

Bye, Tim.

--
http://wikipedistik.de

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

Debbie Garside
In reply to this post by jason safoutin
I think, following this hullabaloo, you will find that FOX will be issuing a
directive to their employees saying that they are NOT allowed to use the FOX
network for making changes to wikis based on their personal knowledge and/or
beliefs and that anyone found doing so will suffer serious consequences :-)

I would expect senior management within FOX to have no prior knowledge of
any of this.  Maybe I am naive in my opinions :-)

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of jason safoutin
> Sent: 21 August 2007 21:32
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki Scanner & wikinews
>
> >Oh lets see... How about the little detail that without confirming
> >evidence there is no reason to believe that an edit made
> from a Fox IP
> >was an action endorsed by Fox?
>
> >With the widespread existence of things like open wireless access
> >points we can't even be sure if any particular edit was made
> by someone
> >employed by For or even using a Fox owned computer.
> >Yet the Wikinews article seems to happily go on and describe every
> >action coming from a company IP was an action of that company.
> >"the BBC had edited", "FOX News, and its parent company, News
> >Corporation had a history of unproductive edits" "FOX also edited"
> >"the CIA had been editing" "FOX's edits" "AP had made a few edits"
>
> >So would you also say that countless other Wiki(p|m)edians
> are editing
> >on behalf of their employers every time they edit from home
> and forget
> >to log out of their VPN? When they edit during a coffee break?
> >Is the only thing protecting me of an accusation of "Greg's employer
> >defends Fox in Wikipedia Whitewashing scandal" the fact that Gmail
> >doesn't send IP addresses?
>
> >It's sad to see us peddling the same sort of irresponsible
> journalism
> >that we've seen from the commercial market on this matter.
> At least in
> >their cases we can give them a pass due to a lack of
> understanding of
> >the technology.
>
> >Whats your excuse?
>
> My excuse...Do you know how IP address work? ONLY individuals
> employed by FOX News Channel, or News Corp have access to
> those IP addresses. ONLY employees are the ones who can log
> onto the internet with those IPs.
>
> Its simple. FOX News employees made the edits, as the tool
> says, under FOX News IP addresses, only able tp be used by
> employees. I or you or anyone else is not able to log onto
> the internet and use their IP ranges. That is impossible.
> This is not whitewashing. We did more than FOX. We did the
> AP, Reuters, MSNBC, CNN, and BBC. and all of those agencies,
> with the exception of FOX News were realitively clean in
> terms of edits.
>
> You see, before slam Wikinews and whitewash us, maybe you
> need to use the WikiScanner tool and understand how it works
> and also understand how IPs work as well.
>
> Jason Safoutin, Wikinews writer, administrator.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research
> Panel today!
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
I completely agree with this point. The evidence should be presented in a
"fair and balanced" way, and rather than spinning it as "A Fox news
employee," it should simply be stated that an edit from the Fox News Corp.
was made to an article related to them. The nature of the edit should also
be explained - did it make them look favorable, or a competitor look less
favorable? Allow people to draw their own conclusions.

On the other hand, if your point is that, because we cannot absolutely
verify that any of these people were actually acting in the best interest of
their employer because we weren't there to see it happen and didn't
interview them about their motivations, that there is likely no phenomenon
here to discuss, you would have veered far and wide of common sense. It's
pretty clear that Wiki Scanner has uncovered some dirt. So cover it, but be
fair and balanced :)

On 8/21/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/21/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Okay, you've been living under a rock if you haven't heard of the
> [snip]
> > Comments/feedback? Are we unduly crucifying Fox? :-)
>
> Oh lets see... How about the little detail that without confirming
> evidence there is no reason to believe that an edit made from a Fox IP
> was an action endorsed by Fox?
>
> With the widespread existence of things like open wireless access
> points we can't even be sure if any particular edit was made by
> someone employed by For or even using a Fox owned computer.
>
> Yet the Wikinews article seems to happily go on and describe every
> action coming from a company IP was an action of that company.
>
> "the BBC had edited", "FOX News, and its parent company, News
> Corporation had a history of unproductive edits" "FOX also edited"
> "the CIA had been editing" "FOX's edits" "AP had made a few edits"
>
> So would you also say that countless other Wiki(p|m)edians are editing
> on behalf of their employers every time they edit from home and forget
> to log out of their VPN? When they edit during a coffee break?
>
> Is the only thing protecting me of an accusation of "Greg's employer
> defends Fox in Wikipedia Whitewashing scandal" the fact that Gmail
> doesn't send IP addresses?
>
> It's sad to see us peddling the same sort of irresponsible journalism
> that we've seen from the commercial market on this matter. At least in
> their cases we can give them a pass due to a lack of understanding of
> the technology.
>
> Whats your excuse?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinew

brian.mcneil-2
In reply to this post by geni
I have to ask why people are going to such great lengths to excuse the
actions of News Corp.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of geni
Sent: 21 August 2007 22:44
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki Scanner & wikinew

On 8/21/07, jason safoutin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My excuse...Do you know how IP address work? ONLY individuals employed by
FOX >News Channel, or News Corp have access to those IP addresses. ONLY
employees are >the ones who can log onto the internet with those IPs.

Prove it.

> Its simple. FOX News employees made the edits, as the tool says, under FOX
News IP >addresses, only able tp be used by employees. I or you or anyone
else is not able to log >onto the internet and use their IP ranges. That is
impossible.

Okey:

There are various ways they could have computers set up for semi
public acess. School vists perhaps.

Fair chance of useing wifi. Far from imposible that their security
hasn't always been flawless

Fox may have chosen at some point to act as an ISP for someone else
either in the same building or a nearby building.

The usual problems with compramised computers

There used to be a way to  make mediawiki record false IPs

>This is not whitewashing. We did more than FOX. We did the AP,
Reuters, MSNBC, CNN, >and BBC. and all of those agencies, with the
exception of FOX News were realitively clean >in terms of edits.
>
> You see, before slam Wikinews and whitewash us, maybe you need to use the
>WikiScanner tool and understand how it works and also understand how IPs
work as well.
>
> Jason Safoutin, Wikinews writer, administrator.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=
&group=checkuser&limit=50

Generaly Check users are chosen from those who know their way around
as to how IPs work.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinews

geni
In reply to this post by Debbie Garside
On 8/21/07, Debbie Garside <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I would expect senior management within FOX to have no prior knowledge of
> any of this.  Maybe I am naive in my opinions :-)
>
> Best
>
> Debbie
>


It would certainly be unusal although there are cases:

http://weblogs.jupitermedia.com/meckler/archives/017880.html

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinew

geni
In reply to this post by brian.mcneil-2
On 8/21/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have to ask why people are going to such great lengths to excuse the
> actions of News Corp.


"Actions of News Corp" I doubt it. Some of their emplyees probably but
without authorisation those cannot be said to be the action of news
corp.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinew

Angela-5
In reply to this post by geni
On 8/21/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There used to be a way to  make mediawiki record false IPs

There still is. It's trivially easy for any admin to do this, for
either an IP or a username.
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/index.php?title=Changing_timestamps&diff=225435&oldid=225436
- Wikimedia and Google IPs addresses edit war over who is best.

Angela

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinew

Kat Walsh-4
In reply to this post by geni
On 8/21/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8/21/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I have to ask why people are going to such great lengths to excuse the
> > actions of News Corp.
>
>
> "Actions of News Corp" I doubt it. Some of their emplyees probably but
> without authorisation those cannot be said to be the action of news
> corp.

::nods::

I hate Fox News; I think it's dealing a rather harsh blow to the state
of public discourse and what passes for news. (Someone always leaves
it on in the cafeteria, and so I am exposed to its programs far more
frequently than I might like.)

But I would not say that the edits made from computers in its address
space are the actions of News Corp. (They spread enough terrible
articles that they're willing to endorse and even advertise to the
world.) The edits may be things News Corp would actually approve of (a
lot of them look like they would be) -- but they may also be the
actions of support staffers and interns on their break, some guy
playing a joke on his co-worker, or people who just still don't know
that yes, everyone can see your changes when you make them, who may
well have been fired for their actions if anyone knew about them at
the time. I seriously doubt News Corp finds it to be in their interest
to replace an entire article, even one critical of them, with juvenile
vandalism, for example, yet that sort of edit can be found among the
others WikiScanner turns up. (Here's an example, from someone who
clearly didn't enjoy "The Incredibles".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=68303976 )

To treat a story about someone we dislike with less concern for
skepticism and neutrality than another story is just as irresponsible
as any bad reporting others do -- so I'd rather err on the side of
caution. Wikimedia projects are somewhat notorious for being overly
pedantic in the attempt to reach neutrality, and I can't deny that at
all. But I'd far rather have that and get a very truthful picture than
a more exciting story that doesn't mention things the reader may not
realize or may get the wrong idea about.

-Kat

(The above opinions are just the opinion of someone blathering on, not
the location from which I am currently posting. :-P)


--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinew

Casey Brown-3
On 8/21/07, Kat Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/21/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 8/21/07, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I have to ask why people are going to such great lengths to excuse the
> > > actions of News Corp.
> >
> >
> > "Actions of News Corp" I doubt it. Some of their emplyees probably but
> > without authorisation those cannot be said to be the action of news
> > corp.
>
> ::nods::
>
> I hate Fox News; I think it's dealing a rather harsh blow to the state
> of public discourse and what passes for news. (Someone always leaves
> it on in the cafeteria, and so I am exposed to its programs far more
> frequently than I might like.)


I know how you feel, I'm in a hotel lobby right now and I see The O'Riley
Factor on in the background........

But I would not say that the edits made from computers in its address

> space are the actions of News Corp. (They spread enough terrible
> articles that they're willing to endorse and even advertise to the
> world.) The edits may be things News Corp would actually approve of (a
> lot of them look like they would be) -- but they may also be the
> actions of support staffers and interns on their break, some guy
> playing a joke on his co-worker, or people who just still don't know
> that yes, everyone can see your changes when you make them, who may
> well have been fired for their actions if anyone knew about them at
> the time. I seriously doubt News Corp finds it to be in their interest
> to replace an entire article, even one critical of them, with juvenile
> vandalism, for example, yet that sort of edit can be found among the
> others WikiScanner turns up. (Here's an example, from someone who
> clearly didn't enjoy "The Incredibles".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=68303976 )


Of course!  We can't assume that these are the opinions of the News Corp
as a whole, just some employees who thought it would be cool or funny to
edit or just didn't think we'd be able to track them this way.

To treat a story about someone we dislike with less concern for
> skepticism and neutrality than another story is just as irresponsible
> as any bad reporting others do -- so I'd rather err on the side of
> caution. Wikimedia projects are somewhat notorious for being overly
> pedantic in the attempt to reach neutrality, and I can't deny that at
> all. But I'd far rather have that and get a very truthful picture than
> a more exciting story that doesn't mention things the reader may not
> realize or may get the wrong idea about.


Yes.  If they are planning on writing a story, they should do it with the
utmost caution! :-)

-Kat

>
> (The above opinions are just the opinion of someone blathering on, not
> the location from which I am currently posting. :-P)
>
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinew

Mark
In reply to this post by brian.mcneil-2
Brian McNeil wrote:
> I have to ask why people are going to such great lengths to excuse the
> actions of News Corp.
>  
Mostly because we don't like distracting political witch hunts every
time someone discovers that someone on a computer owned by [Congress |
The FBI | The Democratic Party | News Corp | Tom Cruise] edited an article.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki Scanner & wikinew

Teun Spaans
In reply to this post by jason safoutin
Geni,

i dont think you got jasons point. He doesnt seem to deny they were made
from a foxnew iip, he just says that the fact that foxnews employees made
the edits fro m foxnews pcs does not mean that foxnews management was
involved. many people use lunch or other sparetime to edit from the office,
without aopproval from their management.

kind regards,
teun


On 8/21/07, jason safoutin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >Oh lets see... How about the little detail that without confirming
> >evidence there is no reason to believe that an edit made from a Fox IP
> >was an action endorsed by Fox?
>
> >With the widespread existence of things like open wireless access
> >points we can't even be sure if any particular edit was made by
> >someone employed by For or even using a Fox owned computer.
> >Yet the Wikinews article seems to happily go on and describe every
> >action coming from a company IP was an action of that company.
> >"the BBC had edited", "FOX News, and its parent company, News
> >Corporation had a history of unproductive edits" "FOX also edited"
> >"the CIA had been editing" "FOX's edits" "AP had made a few edits"
>
> >So would you also say that countless other Wiki(p|m)edians are
> >editing
> >on behalf of their employers every time they edit from home and forget
> >to log out of their VPN? When they edit during a coffee break?
> >Is the only thing protecting me of an accusation of "Greg's employer
> >defends Fox in Wikipedia Whitewashing scandal" the fact that Gmail
> >doesn't send IP addresses?
>
> >It's sad to see us peddling the same sort of irresponsible journalism
> >that we've seen from the commercial market on this matter. At least in
> >their cases we can give them a pass due to a lack of understanding of
> >the technology.
>
> >Whats your excuse?
>
> My excuse...Do you know how IP address work? ONLY individuals employed by
> FOX News Channel, or News Corp have access to those IP addresses. ONLY
> employees are the ones who can log onto the internet with those IPs.
>
> Its simple. FOX News employees made the edits, as the tool says, under FOX
> News IP addresses, only able tp be used by employees. I or you or anyone
> else is not able to log onto the internet and use their IP ranges. That is
> impossible. This is not whitewashing. We did more than FOX. We did the AP,
> Reuters, MSNBC, CNN, and BBC. and all of those agencies, with the exception
> of FOX News were realitively clean in terms of edits.
>
> You see, before slam Wikinews and whitewash us, maybe you need to use the
> WikiScanner tool and understand how it works and also understand how IPs
> work as well.
>
> Jason Safoutin, Wikinews writer, administrator.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12